men's rea of theft

• what does section 6 ( 1 ) of the theft act 1968 say?

  It describes what it means to intend to permanently deprive someone of their property; this concept encompasses situations where the D has intention to treat the thing as his own and dispose of it regardless of the other person’s rights or borrowing it for such a long time that it is the same as outright taking it.
• which section of whhich legislation what it means to intend to permanently deprive someone of their property; this concept encompasses situations where the D has intention to treat the thing as his own and dispose of it regardless of the other person’s rights or borrowing it for such a long time that it is the same as outright taking it?

  Sec tion 6 ( 1 ) of the theft act 1968
• what is the significance of the case of DPP v J and others?

  It shows that if the defendant broke someone's property shows that the defendant hasthe intention to deprive the victim of their property
• Which case shows that if the defendant broke someone's property shows that the defendant hasthe intention to deprive the victim of their property?

  Dpp v J and Others~
• What is the significance of the case of r v velumyl?

  It shows that if the defendant doesn't have the intention to return the exact thing they stole to the victim, it counts as intending to deprive the victim of their property.
• which case shows that if the defendant doesn't have the intention to return the exact thing they stole to the victim, it counts as intending to deprive the victim of their property?

  r v Velumyl
• Section 2 ( 1 ) of the theft act 1968 gives three situations where the defendant isn't dishonest:

  1. the D will not be dishonest if he has appropriated property believing he had a right to deprive the other of it for himself or another person.
  2. The D will not be dishonest if he honestly believed the owner of the property would have consented to the D taking of the property#
  3. Thirdly the D will not be dishonest if he honestly believes the owner of the property cannot be found by taking reasonable steps.
• what is the significance of the cases of r v robinson and r v holden?

  These cases are examples of a defendant being found not guilty of theft because they had an honest belief that they were entitled to the property
• Which cases are examples of a defendant being found not guilty of theft because they had an honest belief that they were entitled to the property?

  R v Holden and r v Robinson
• what is the significance of the case of Barton and Booth?

  It gives the test for dishonesty
• Which case gave the test for dishonesty?

  Barton and booth
• According to the case of barton and booth, what is the test for dishonesty?

  1. what was the defendant's actual state of knowledge or beliefs as to the facts?
  2. Was their conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary and decent people?
• What is the significance of r v Barton and Booth?

  It confirms the test for dishonesty
• what is the test for dishonesty set by r v Barton and Booth??

  First, what was the state of the D’s knowledge or belief as to the facts.

  Second, was the D’s conduct dishonest according to reasonable people?